1. Appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302, IPC, following an alleged attack with a butcher knife during a quarrel. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 545
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Aslam Alias Imran – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1538 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 15254 of 2024)
Decided On : 27-03-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Sr.Adv. Mr. Prathvi Raj Chauhan, AOR Mr. Prakash Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bittu Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Meghraj Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker,Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Sr.Adv. Mr. Prathvi Raj Chauhan, AOR Mr. Prakash Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bittu Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Meghraj Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker,Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – Merely being an interested witness cannot be a ground for discarding his testimony – However, evidence of such a witness is required to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.
(2) Enmity is a double-edged weapon – On one hand, it provides motive, on other hand it also does not rule out possibility of false implication.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1)] – Murder – Life sentence – Merely being an interested witness cannot be a ground for discarding his testimony – However, evidence of such a witness is required to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection – It has come in evidence on record that deceased was a history-sheeter and was facing many criminal cases including a case for attempt to murder – It has also come in evidence of prosecution witnesses that there was previous enmity between deceased and appellant – Other witnesses have not supported case of prosecution and were declared hostile – Enmity is a double-edged weapon – On one hand, it provides motive, on other hand it also does not rule out possibility of false implication – From evidence placed on record by prosecution, possibility of appellant being falsely implicated on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out – Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt – Appellant acquitted of all charges levelled against him. (Paras 13, 19, 20, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges final judgment and order dated 26th September 2024, passed by Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1996 filed by Appellant herein whereby High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal and upheld the order of Trial Court passed in Sessions Trial No. 1023 of 1994 thereby convicting accused-appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and order dated 26th September 2024 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 1996 and judgment and order dated 21st November 1995 passed by trial court in Sessions Trial No.1023 of 1994 quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to witness credibility and consistency — alternative plea for benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC, citing lack of intention to kill. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Witness testimonies were inconsistent, unnatural in conduct, and contradicted by evidence, while previous enmity suggested the possibility of false implication. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Enmity serves as a double-edged weapon, providing motive but also allowing for the possibility of false implication, necessitating scrutiny of evidence. (Para 22 )
5. Appeal allowed — conviction and sentence quashed — appellant acquitted of all charges. (Para 23 , 24 )
6. How should the testimony of an interested witness be evaluated in a criminal trial?
While being an interested witness is not a ground for discarding testimony, such evidence must be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection to ensure it inspires confidence. (Para 13 )
7. What impact does the unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses have on the prosecution's case?
Failure of witnesses to inform police or family members despite proximity and availability of means of communication can render their evidence unnatural and cast doubt on its veracity. (Para 14 )
8. What is the legal implication of a significant delay in recording witness statements?
A long gap between the incident and the recording of statements, without a valid explanation, can lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution. (Para 15 , 21 )
9. How does the court treat previous enmity between the accused and the deceased?
Enmity is viewed as a double-edged weapon; while it can provide a motive for the crime, it also creates the possibility of the accused being falsely implicated. (Para 20 , 22 )
JUDGMENT :
(B.R. Gavai, J.)
1. Leave Granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 26th September 2024, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur1[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1996 filed by the Appellant herein whereby the High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and upheld the order of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.)2[Hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”.] passed in Sessions Trial No. 1023 of 1994 thereby convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 18603[Hereinafter referred to as “IPC”] and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
3. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:
3.1. On 22nd August 1994, at noon, the information about an attack on the deceased Zahid Khan alias Guddu was given to Omti Police Station and thereafter a Dehati was written by Sub-Inspector A.K Bajpai (PW-12) at 01:30 PM.
3.2. FIR No. 461/1994 was registered at Omti P.S on the same date narrating the attack on the deceased as per the information shared by Shahid Khan (PW-1) - the brother of the deceased. The prosecution case is as follows:
On 22nd August 1994, at around 12.30 PM an abusive quarrel broke out on the road between the accused-appellant Aslam alias Imran and the deceased at an area “Naya Mohalla”. The accused thereafter attacked the deceased with a butcher knife (baka) causing multiple injuries on his hands and thighs, and a deep wound on his neck leading to the deceased bleeding profusely. The accused fled away from the scene, and the injured deceased was taken by Shahid Khan (PW-1) and others to Victoria Hospital where upon seeing his critical condition, he was shifted to the Medical College.
3.3. The accused succumbed to the injuries on the same day at around 02:10 PM. The Lash Panchnama was written on the same day by Sub–Inspector Vajpayee (PW-11) and signed by Shahid Khan (PW-1) and others. The investigation began, blood on the soil at the spot of crime was seized and the body was sent for medical examination.
3.4. The accused was arrested on 25th August 1994. Based on the disclosure made by the accused, the blood-stained butcher knife (baka) was discovered from a container at the residence of the accused.
3.5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed to the Sessions Court.
3.6. Vide judgment and order dated 21st November 1995, the trial court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
3.7. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the High Court upheld the judgment and order of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC, and directed the appellant who was out on bail to surrender before the trial court to undergo the remaining part of his jail sentence.
3.8. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
5. Mr. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would reveal that the said witnesses are not trustworthy and their testimonies are inconsistent to each other. As such, the conviction on the basis of such testimonies would not be sustainable in law.
6. In the alternative, Mr. Hegde submits that even if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is taken at its face value, it would clearly reveal that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. It is the deceased who was having a knife. As a result of the quarrel, the appellant picked up the knife of the deceased and assaulted him. He therefore submits that it
